Chandler v. James

• Decision Date: 13 July 1999
• Docket Number: 97-6953.,No. 97-6898,97-6898
• Citation: 180 F.3d 1254
• Parties: Michael CHANDLER, individually and as next friend of his son, Jesse Chandler, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Fob JAMES, Jr., in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Alabama and President of the State Board of Education, et al., Defendants-Appellants.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit

180 F.3d 1254

Michael CHANDLER, individually and as next friend of his son, Jesse Chandler, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Fob JAMES, Jr., in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Alabama and President of the State Board of Education, et al., Defendants-Appellants.

Nos. 97-6898, 97-6953.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

July 13, 1999.

Bill Pryor, Attorney General, Thomas F. Parker, IV, Asst. Attorney General, Jere L. Beasley, Montgomery, AL, A. Eric Johnston, Birmingham, AL, Jay Alan Sekulow, Washington, DC, Stuart J. Roth, Mobile, AL, for Defendants-Appellants.

Bart Harmon, Webb & Eley, PC, Montgomery, AL, Forrest H. James, III, Birmingham, AL for Fob James.

Gerald A. Templeton, Lloyd, Schreiber & Gray, Birmingham, AL, for Talladega City Bd. of Education.

Steven Green, Americans United, Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.

Marc D. Stern, New York City, Elizabeth J. Hubertz, Pam Sumners, Birmingham, AL, for American Jewish Congress, Amicus Curiae.

Eric P. Schroeder, Powell, Goldstein, Frazer & Murphy, LLP, Atlanta, GA, for Anti-Defamation League & People for American Way Foundation, Amicus Curiae.

Before TJOFLAT, Circuit Judge, and GODBOLD and HILL, Senior Circuit Judges.

HILL, Senior Circuit Judge:

Plaintiffs brought this action challenging the facial constitutionality of Alabama's statute permitting non-sectarian, non-proselytizing student-initiated prayer, invocations and benedictions during compulsory or non-compulsory school-related assemblies, sporting events, graduation ceremonies and other school-related events. Plaintiffs also challenged the statute as applied by the DeKalb County School Board. The district court held the statute unconstitutional on its face, granted plaintiffs partial summary judgment on their claims regarding the statute as applied, and enjoined defendants from enforcing the statute or continuing to conduct the challenged practices. Defendants bring this appeal.

I.

In 1993, the Alabama Legislature enacted a statute containing the following provision:

(b) On public school, other public, or other property, non-sectarian, non-proselytizing student-initiated voluntary prayer, invocation and/or benedictions, shall be permitted during compulsory or non-compulsory school-related student assemblies, school-related student sporting events, school-related graduation or commencement ceremonies, and other school-related student events.

Ala.Code § 16-1-20.3(b) (1995).

In 1996, Michael Chandler, a vice-principal in the DeKalb County school system, and his son Jesse, a student in that system, brought this action challenging the facial validity and the application of this statute in the DeKalb County schools.¹ Defendants included the Governor of the State of Alabama, the State Superintendent of Education, the members of the State Board of Education, and the Superintendents and members of the boards of education of the City of Talladega and of DeKalb County, Alabama.²

On March 12, 1997, the district court granted partial summary judgment for the Chandlers, holding the statute facially unconstitutional. On October 29, 1997, the district court permanently enjoined DeKalb County from enforcing the statute. On November 12, 1997, the district court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law in its Supplemental Opinion and Order. That same day, but by separate Memorandum Opinion and Order, the district court held that DeKalb had engaged in unconstitutional officially organized or sponsored religious activities, and granted summary judgment to the Chandlers on their claim that DeKalb had applied the statute unconstitutionally. The district court appointed a monitor to oversee the enforcement of the Permanent Injunction. All defendants appealed from the Permanent Injunction, the Supplemental Opinion and Order, and the Memorandum Opinion and Order.

In his brief, the Governor of the State of Alabama asserts that the district court erred in holding the statute facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment. The Governor contends that the First Amendment's prohibition against the establishment of a religion does not apply to the states by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court rejected this argument, as do we. Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303, 60 S.Ct. 900, 84 L.Ed. 1213 (1940). See also Everson v. Board of Educ., 330 U.S. 1, 8, 67 S.Ct. 504, 91 L.Ed. 711 (1947). Because the states are bound by the First Amendment, the district court did not err in evaluating Alabama's statute under it. Accordingly, we shall affirm the judgment of the district court as to the Governor's appeal.³

The remainder of the appellants (referred to collectively as DeKalb) do not contest the district court's holding that the statute is facially unconstitutional, nor that the DeKalb County schools engaged in unconstitutional officially organized or sponsored religious activities. Therefore, we do not review the district court's determinations of these issues.

Neither does DeKalb appeal that portion of the Permanent Injunction entered by the district court which prohibits it from "aiding, abetting, commanding, counseling, inducing, ordering, or procuring . . . school organized or officially sanctioned religious activity in its schools including, but not limited to, vocal prayer, Bible and devotional or scriptural readings, distribution of religious materials, texts, or announcements, and discussions of a devotional or inspirational nature, in school or at school-related events, to include assemblies, sporting events, and graduation ceremonies." Apparently, DeKalb concedes that, under Supreme Court precedent, it may not prescribe prayer or allow state employees to lead, participate in or otherwise endorse prayer of any type during curricular or extracurricular events.⁴ See Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577, 586, 112 S.Ct. 2649, 120 L.Ed.2d 467 (1992); County of Allegheny v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573, 594, 109 S.Ct. 3086, 106 L.Ed.2d 472 (1989); Doe v. Duncanville Indep. Sch. Dist., 70 F.3d 402 (5th Cir.1995).

The Permanent Injunction, however, also prohibits DeKalb from "permitting" vocal prayer or other devotional speech in its schools. While the injunction makes clear that it does not prohibit students from voluntarily praying while at school or at school-related events, either individually or with each other, so long as the prayer is purely private,⁵ it prohibits all prayer or other devotional speech in situations which are not purely private, such as aloud in the classroom, over the public address system, or as part of the program at school-related assemblies and sporting events, or at a graduation ceremony. Furthermore, the prohibition applies to bar not only school personnel from leading or participating in such public or vocal prayer or other devotional speech or Bible reading, but also requires school officials to forbid students⁶ or other private individuals from doing so while in school or at school-related events.

DeKalb does appeal this portion of the Permanent Injunction. It contends that the district court may not constitutionally require it to forbid this speech, pointing out that the Supreme Court has made very clear that "private religious speech, far from being a First Amendment orphan, is as fully protected under the Free Speech Clause as secular private expression." Capitol Square Review and Advisory Bd. v. Pinette, 515 U.S. 753, 760, 115 S.Ct. 2440, 132 L.Ed.2d 650 (1995).⁷ "There is a crucial difference between government speech endorsing religion, which the Establishment Clause forbids, and private speech endorsing religion, which the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses protect." Board of Educ. of Westside Community Schools v. Mergens, 496 U.S. 226, 250, 110 S.Ct. 2356, 110 L.Ed.2d 191 (1990) (quoting Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578, 584, 107 S.Ct. 2573, 96 L.Ed.2d 510 (1987)) (emphasis in original).

Even the Chandlers agree that "the Establishment Clause does not ban prayer. It bans state prayer." (Plaintiffs' Reply Brief) (emphasis in original). They contend, however, that student-initiated religious speech in the public schools is state prayer, and, therefore, DeKalb may not permit it.

Our review of the Permanent Injunction, then, is limited to the issue of whether the district court may constitutionally enjoin DeKalb from permitting student-initiated religious speech in its schools.⁸ For the following reasons, we hold the court may not. We vacate the Permanent Injunction and remand for further proceedings.

II.

The district court's opinion holds that the Constitution requires it to prohibit public religious speech in schools because the Establishment Clause is violated if government permits religious speech—even if initiated by students—in schools or at school-related events. DeKalb contends that this conclusion is wrong for two reasons. First, students are not state actors and, therefore, by definition, their actions cannot tend to "establish" religion in violation of the Establishment Clause. Second, the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment require the State to tolerate genuinely student-initiated religious speech in schools.

Students as State Actors and the Establishment Clause

The Establishment Clause prohibits Congress—or any other governmental body—from acting in such a way as to establish a religion. Everson, 330 U.S. at 8, 67 S.Ct. 504. DeKalb argues that because students are not state actors—Congress or a governmental body—their religious speech cannot, by definition, tend to establish a religion.

It is true that ordinarily religious speech by private parties cannot establish religion, even if it occurs in a public institution, such as a school. Mergens, 496 U.S. at 250, 110 S.Ct. 2356. On the other hand, it is clear that private parties' religious speech can violate the Establishment Clause if the State uses such parties as surrogates to accomplish what the State may not do. For...